"Three other proposals in the Business Roundtable’s roadmap also merit Mr Obama’s serious consideration. The first is its suggestion that, when designing new regulations, the administration should talk more with the firms that will be affected. Businesspeople fret that some parts of the executive branch—notably the Environmental Protection Agency—pay scant heed to the costs they impose. Forthcoming rules on air pollutants, for example, worry them a lot."

With 30+ years experience at EPA in providing analysis and review of Agency regulations, I offer a comment on the above.

Prior to issuing any major regulation (defined by executive order as any rule which may impose costs in excess of $100 million per year) the Agency engages in an extensive process of data-gathering, relying largely on information from affected firms. Entire forests (or universes of electrons) are laid waste in this effort. All of this information, by law, is made publically available for comment as part of the proposed rule. Again by law, EPA reviews and responds (no necessarily agreeing/making changes) before issuing a final rule. Accompanying any major rule at proposal is both a cost and economic analysis, as well as any scientific studies that support the rule. We also take comment on these and revise for the final rule. There are numerous meetings with 'stakeholder' as part of the rulemaking process. (I will not address the inevitable ensuing litigation when all of this is again chewed and more is added.)

In some instances, for example, the Clean Air Act statute bars our consideration of costs. ( I disagree with this but no President has yet seen fit to put me and like-midned souls on the Supreme Court.)

To say EPA does not talk with business nor pays attention to the costs of its rules is disingenuous at best, and frankly, in the case of the Round Table, dishonest; it knows better. "Crying wolf" about regulation is a basic business stategy, not only in the realm of the environment. Witness the furious lobbying now occurring to weeaken the implementation of the Dodd-Frank bill.

Dr Smith lauded the virtues of the 'invisble hand' in improving the material well-being of people but he entertained no illusions about the self-interest in the assemblies(e.g. the Business RoundTable) of the merchants whose efforts provided said improvement.

How can the economist and its readers be so shortsighted about this. Not even getting into health care specifically, his rhetoric about 'fat cat bankers' and spreading the wealth around, or the consequences of a desired cap and trade scheme. Under his administration we have also seen:

-A provision in the financial reform bill designed to force manufacturers, as well as certain retailers, to disclose whether their goods contain trace amounts of tin, tantalum, tungsten, or gold originally mined in war torn parts of central African.

-Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in the financial reform bill.

-The requirement that a business fill out paperwork for any transaction over $600.

This isn't 'better regulation', instead it is the kind of junk that adds up for businesses and has them running in circles and adding costs.

Never seen such a neglect of the contributions that Small and Medium sized enterprises make in the creation of jobs and sustainable innovations. Are the big corporations really the backbone of the economy? They moved their financial headquarters to tax-paradises long time ago. It seems to me that they gulge up a lot of the tax benefits, credits and subsidies which they have become addicted to just like the huge salaries. By the way, in most of Europe's two-tier structured public companies shareholders have a say in executives' salaries, but also in Europe salaries and bonuses skyrocketed over the years.

Corporate America never had so good. Corporations can decide elections and lobby for no regulation. The top 2% of Americans will not pay their fair amount of taxes and will keep moving their money to non-profit organizations to avoid even more the "terrible" American taxation. The poor citizens are falling into misery and the middle class is falling into poverty, which is great for corporations because when you are poor you become an "object" of manipulation. Unemployment high? This is great news for corporations too. More people unemployed means more cheap and qualified labor. God bless America.

Can somebody PLEASE challenge the canard of high corporate tax rates in this country? The majority of Fortune 500 companies pay nowhere near 35%. Their effective tax rates are much lower, thanks to institutionalized chicanery in the tax system which is gleefully exploited by accounting lords the world over. There is no shortage of data-driven evidence to support this. (My attempts to include a link are setting off the spam filter so you'll have to search 'gap between statutory and effective rates' yourself).

Look the deal here is not making nice with a bunch of rent-seeking fat cats and these types don't much care what brand of pol they cut a deal with . Where obama needs to go is to see Joe the Plumber and I mean Snows of Canossa style : You are the engine of growth and my attack on your prospects was wrong and the 10%unemployment/20%underemployment is the payback . I was wrong . ( PS Never gonna happen , never )

As this section is entitled Shumpeter, I suppose we should consider what Schumpeter might say before commenting. I think Peter Drucker had a reasonable under understanding of both Schumpeter and Keynes and offers his thoughts on both in "MODERN PROPHETS: SCHUMPETER OR KEYNES?" http://www.druckersociety.at/index.php/peterdruckerhome/texts
It is a great read and Drucker says it may be one of his best works.

Here's a clip
"But Schumpeter also knew that today’s short-term measures have long-term impacts. They irrevocably make the future. Not to think through the futurity of short-term decisions and their impact long after “we are all dead” is irresponsible. It also leads to the wrong decisions. It is this constant emphasis in Schumpeter on thinking through the long-term consequences of the expedient, the popular, the clever, and the brilliant that makes him a great economist and the appropriate guide for today, when short-run, clever, brilliant economics – and short-run, clever, brilliant politics – have become bankrupt.

So I think Drucker might be, in typical fashion, rather scolding, not about the plan, but about the questions asked. It would be great to see comments before and after Drucker's perspective on Keynes and Schumpter.

President Obama and the FED have indeed Enriched U.S. Business- Yet Business Wants More

STOCKS WILL JUMP ON GOOD OR BAD NEWS

The players in the stock market created a new game with one rule:

"No Matter What The News or Economic Realities BUY."

The object of their game is to get average American Main Street investors to put their money in stocks and then clean them out.

This game, built on spin and hype most likely, as always, will result in an asset bubble, the players will win, the average American Main Street investors will lose, and then, the game will be played over and over again.

And capitalism will flourish supported by the FED and the U.S. Government.

Had to hold off from hitting the recommend button. This came off as a bit of a light piece = nothing really new seem to have been stated, other than some itemization of likes and dislikes from specific special interests.

Businesses have complained about these points for three decades plus:
-The EPA
-Taxes
-Tort

Given these concerns have spanned administrations under both parties, what is new and how is this specific to Obama?

Otherwise, why no mention about their attitudes towards the bailouts that the Obama administration continued and extended from the prior administration. That seems a heck of an oversight. Are they like "thank you very much suckers" or in denial?

The "dislike" about shareholder democracy and shareholders having some say in executive compensation came off as a bit more disturbing - Those are technically the owners, while the boss are the high-end hired help.

"They blame him for the rotten economy when really, in his view, they should blame his predecessor."

They - the private sector collectively and business in particular - should also primarily blame themselves. With short-sighted pursuit of individual interests, there are now extraordinary pressures that will perpetuate a stagnant economy and high unemployment - with continuous political pressure on US presidents and Congress to "do something" about it - as far into the future as anyone can see.

The business community has failed to convert freer trade into sufficiently large exports of goods and services to prevent the massive trade deficits that weigh on our economic prosperity and thwart US job creation. Our health care system is 50 percent more bloated and inefficient compared to any other 1st world country. Business lobbyists have fought much harder for special interest tax breaks and income tax reductions than for either comparable offsetting spending reductions or tax system reform - thus contributing to the massive and mostly structural budget deficits that threaten future US prosperity. Scandalous behavior in areas of food safety, drug safety, consumer relations, etc. naturally lead to efforts to increase regulation. Financial sector recklessness that brought the worldwide financial system to the brink of collapse and economic depression - all these things are more the collective fault of private sector decision-making gone horribly wrong even if Bush, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan along with Congressional Republicans and Democrats all rightfully share the blame.

The business community needs to "man-up" and seek more unselfish compromise that helps to constructively fix these massive, accumulated problems if they want a better future for the US economy and less attack from US politicians.

Obama follows exactly Clinton's successful strategy -- first positioning himself to the left to get elected, then moving to the centre to get re-elected. Clinton's health agenda failed because he didn't get it done in the first two years, while Obama succeeded to push it through.

Now that the centrist Republicans run the House, they can no longer afford to "just say no". Their only problem will be the radical tea partiers who will interfere with every spending measure. They will need the support of moderate Democrats to overcome both the extreme Right and Pelosi's extreme Left.

"His chance to prove it?" - It seems he still doesn't know what to do and how to prove it. Moreover, it seems he doesn't have enough time to prove it.

Over the last several years, various economic bubbles in the equity market have not been removed and still remain in the market. Potential fiscal risks such as high deficit problems have been significantly aggravated in many countries, especially in many European countries such as Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal. We cannot imagine when they will burst again and when the new crisis will occur. In other words, the possibility for these to be an economic tsunami is very high. In this case, employment in every country will inevitably plummet, and the deficits of almost all countries in the world, particularly the US Federal Deficit, will uncontrollably skyrocket. It could be another Great Depression. This is the worst case scenario. We must not allow this to happen. But, the clock is still ticking, and time is not working in our favor. We should and must act immediately – before it is too late.

I strongly suggest you to see this article: "Breaking Down the Economic Death Spiral – and Saving the World Economy" http://t.co/8pMwQh7

We now have executives that they may be able as fairly large exporting corporations receive great benefit from these active steps taken by the government and the Federal Reserve in their favor over small business. They also see a possibility that they too may fall in the "Too Big to Fail" category.
Listen up! Capitalism is the hard core crawl of more efficient businesses over the bodies of less efficient. We have violated that principal in the most vital spot where it never should have been violated, our banking system. We are no longer capitalistic by definition. This will have permutations for decades to come. And now, all the big companies seem to want the same lemming-like capability. Go figure!